Page 22 of 31 FirstFirst ... 13141516171819202122232425262728293031 LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 455

Thread: US plan to improve Afghan intelligence operations branded a $457m failure

  1. #316
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Can you articulate what the downside to India will be in this affair ? this trap you speak of

    TAPI is just one more option among others. Since we are the biggest customers, if ever supply gets cut it reverberates right back down the line. They all lose as well. This means our position in this deal is good. It means everybody along the line has an incentive to keep the tap open, yes ?

    Prices are market driven so we don't get held to ransom. We might even be able to negotiate better than market given our weight in this deal. Turkmens have debts to repay to China.

    need to find a copy of the parliamentary panel's report if they have made it public, there will be more details as to their thinking

    Presently there are no expectations in Delhi about the Paks. Rather its the other side that is waiting for a change of guard. They see no progress ie appeasement can be had from the stubborn Modi govt : D
    The trap is the Pak army, the ISI, and their Jihad manufacturing industry a.k.a LeT, JeM, HM, Taliban, Haqqanis. Why do you think the Taliban wants to guard the pipeline? It's not the Taliban, it's the ISI that will be guarding the pipeline.

    When Iran was under sanctions, India and China were allowed to buy petroleum, and the US let it be, knowing both are energy hungry countries with massive populations to take care of. There is no shortage of oil producing countries and India has very good terms with West Asia.

    You, Sir, have fallen for the same trick, that the GoI falls each time, and the US too, thinking incentives will change Paks behavior. No, Sir, history is filled with facts that it isn't the case.

  2. #317
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The trap is the Pak army, the ISI, and their Jihad manufacturing industry a.k.a LeT, JeM, HM, Taliban, Haqqanis. Why do you think the Taliban wants to guard the pipeline? It's not the Taliban, it's the ISI that will be guarding the pipeline.
    ok, can you explain further how we get entrapped here ?

    Maybe you want to say why are we subdising their actions against us...to answer that need the parliaments report.

    When Iran was under sanctions, India and China were allowed to buy petroleum, and the US let it be, knowing both are energy hungry countries with massive populations to take care of. There is no shortage of oil producing countries and India has very good terms with West Asia.

    You, Sir, have fallen for the same trick, that the GoI falls each time, and the US too, thinking incentives will change Paks behavior. No, Sir, history is filled with facts that it isn't the case.
    So can we get our gas then ?

    Paks do not have a problem with inflow into India, just outflow.

    Whether it changes Pak behaviour or not i can't say but that isn't the driving motivator here. Somebody has something to sell, they need customers. A pipeline is a way to achieve it. Commercial motivations are the driver

    Following your line of reasoning why don' we shut the doors to China until our political problem is resolved. Why are we trading with them at all and running up such a huge deficit in the first place. Because the bigger that deficit grows it then offers us some leverage.

    You can fight wars and win peace or buy it ?
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Mar 18, at 18:02.

  3. #318
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    An interesting read


    I think you are under estimating the effect of that listing and also jumping the gun about the effects it will have. Wait till June, the Paks have to come up with a plan that will pass muster.

    The charge is terror financing. How are they going to pull this one off.

    This isn't just diplomatic isolation but risks becoming economic isolation. That will have multiple second order effects throughout the country. Effects will be apparent over the years. It won't bring them to their heels immediately. But it will just be a constant drag every time they want to do something. Remember they are trying to attract investment as a potential future fast growth state. This FATF listing puts quite a dampener on that.
    Wasn't Pak on the greylist before for money laundering? This time it's for terror financing. Words changed, but tell me how is terrorism financed? Yes, money laundering is one part of it. Obama was nice. Pak manages to get off everytime. They have been fooling the world for 70 years. I don't put my hopes on Pakistan, until, as I said some years back, the Pak Army is reduced to a police force with sticks.

  4. #319
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    ok, can you explain further how we get entrapped here ?

    Maybe you want to say why are we subdising their actions against us...to answer that need the parliaments report.
    The Americans are invested in Pak. How many Americans have died in Afghanistan? The simple logic that you don't try to understand is Pak will close the tap even if India sneezes terror from Pak. Remember the Salala incident and the aftermath? It's not wise investing in a pipeline that goes through unstable countries. Once again, first rule of business - Protect your investments.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    So can we get our gas then ?

    Paks do not have a problem with inflow into India, just outflow.
    West Asia. Pak have a problem with India. Inflow, outflow comes later.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Whether it changes Pak behaviour or not i can't say but that isn't the driving motivator here. Somebody has something to sell, they need customers. A pipeline is a way to achieve it. Commercial motivations are the driver
    Hillary apologized 6 months (IIRC) after the Salala incident, NATO supply route was then re-opened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Following your line of reasoning why don' we shut the doors to China until our political problem is resolved. Why are we trading with them at all and running up such a huge deficit in the first place. Because the bigger that deficit grows it then offers us some leverage.
    No. You are not following my line of reasoning. I won't be happy, but satisfied commercially, if the oil route passed through China, into India. China is a stable country.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    You can fight wars and win peace or buy it ?
    Peace cannot be bought from a country that was formed based on theology, is using Islamic terrorism to achieve it's end goals, is hell bent on destroying India and it's neighbors, and has religious zealots in every sphere of the country's executive, judiciary and military.

    And that, DE, is not hate, it is the truth.
    Last edited by Oracle; 27 Mar 18, at 18:19.

  5. #320
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    Wasn't Pak on the greylist before for money laundering? This time it's for terror financing. Words changed, but tell me how is terrorism financed? Yes, money laundering is one part of it.
    FATF must have criteria how they will assess the Paks. What FATF expectations are. Whether this information is public or not

    This is years long exercise. The change in terminology is significant. Money laundering can be for anything. Terror financing is much more specific than money laundering.

    Terror financing is done informally with nothing recorded. Which makes me wonder just how the Paks prove a negative here. If there is nothing to start with then how do you show there isn't anything. See what i mean

    Obama was nice. Pak manages to get off everytime.
    I'm not familiar with the reasons why they got put on the list the last time. Which makes me wonder what changes were made that got them off the list and how successful the exercise was. Maybe it wasn't that successful so they got more specific this time around.

    They have been fooling the world for 70 years. I don't put my hopes on Pakistan, until, as I said some years back, the Pak Army is reduced to a police force with sticks.
    These are not sanctions. They will say they have not been affected. Our media will say aha see, we told you so. The world has given them a pass yet again.

    I prefer to wait and see, this will take time to assess
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Mar 18, at 19:28.

  6. #321
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The Americans are invested in Pak. How many Americans have died in Afghanistan? The simple logic that you don't try to understand is Pak will close the tap even if India sneezes terror from Pak. Remember the Salala incident and the aftermath? It's not wise investing in a pipeline that goes through unstable countries. Once again, first rule of business - Protect your investments.
    If initial reports our correct, our outlay is a mere 5%. I'd take a chance on that. You still haven't answered that they lose if they turn the tap off. Does that count for anything. And the Turkmens lose as well and that means no commisons. The take on Salala is the paks discovered that 6 months of closure showed them they weren't as essential as they believed. They just needed to save face.


    Hillary apologized 6 months (IIRC) after the Salala incident, NATO supply route was then re-opened.
    And ? how much was that apology worth

    like i said if they gum up the works they lose. Buyer calls the tune here. One pipe does not give the Paks much leverage. The Paks only get transit fees. As do the Afghans. TAPI is buying peace then in Afghanistan ?


    No. You are not following my line of reasoning. I won't be happy, but satisfied commercially, if the oil route passed through China, into India. China is a stable country.
    let those providing the gas worry about stability of flow.

    Paks cut us off, Turkmens will cut the Paks off. You see the MAD principle at play here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    The trap is the Pak army, the ISI, and their Jihad manufacturing industry a.k.a LeT, JeM, HM, Taliban, Haqqanis. Why do you think the Taliban wants to guard the pipeline? It's not the Taliban, it's the ISI that will be guarding the pipeline.
    Good it means the ISI sees value in this transaction. A class protection. They want to ensure the tap stays open and no third parties interfere. The pipeline is an asset. Why guard it otherwise


    Peace cannot be bought from a country that was formed based on theology, is using Islamic terrorism to achieve it's end goals, is hell bent on destroying India and it's neighbors, and has religious zealots in every sphere of the country's executive, judiciary and military.

    And that, DE, is not hate, it is the truth.
    All well and good. I look at this as a commerical affair with gains for everyone. What could go wrong : )

    I am interested to see how this experiment turns out because it flies right smack into the face of conventional wisdom

    If the Bania mentality is the art of the possible, let's go. IPI was their idea in the last NDA. I remember the same reflexive push back from the media about it. Can't pass through Pakistan they said. In reality what killed IPI was the Americans and their sanctions. The Americans were the spoiler.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 27 Mar 18, at 20:37.

  7. #322
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Pakistan PM Shahid Khaqan Abbasi put through security check in US

    The Pak PM has a diplomatic passport, yes? Such humiliation doesn't augur well for Pak entities in the foreseeable future. Waiting for mil and spy centric sanctions.

  8. #323
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    If initial reports our correct, our outlay is a mere 5%. I'd take a chance on that. You still haven't answered that they lose if they turn the tap off. Does that count for anything. And the Turkmens lose as well and that means no commisons. The take on Salala is the paks discovered that 6 months of closure showed them they weren't as essential as they believed. They just needed to save face.
    If Pak stopped terrorism in Kashmir, they would have earned much more through cross-border trade than this puny project will add to their revenues. They have been playing US for decades now, how is Turkmenistan even a concern? And the Salala incident showed that being invested in Pak is a dangerous affair. Hillary apologized and she was the SecofState.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    And ? how much was that apology worth

    like i said if they gum up the works they lose. Buyer calls the tune here. One pipe does not give the Paks much leverage. The Paks only get transit fees. As do the Afghans. TAPI is buying peace then in Afghanistan ?
    What worth? NATO supply routes were re-opened. Pak got nothing to lose, once gas starts flowing, it is India which loses. You have to understand that geography insists that the pipeline passes through Pak before entering India. And common sense indicates it's a losing proposition to invest in a pipeline that passes through enemy territory.

    Why do you think TAPI is for buying peace?

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    let those providing the gas worry about stability of flow.

    Paks cut us off, Turkmens will cut the Paks off. You see the MAD principle at play here.
    Oh good lord. It's GAS, not nukes. Turkmenistan is insignificant to alter any change vis-a-vis Pakmil.

    Earlier you were supporting TAPI, now you talk about Turkmenistan retaliating if Pak turns the tap off. Your thoughts are scattered all over the place. You are not sure if you want to support TAPI, you want to take a chance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Good it means the ISI sees value in this transaction. A class protection. They want to ensure the tap stays open and no third parties interfere. The pipeline is an asset. Why guard it otherwise
    Really? You didn't understand what I meant? The ISI is the Taliban here. The pipeline sure is an asset, but for the ISI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    All well and good. I look at this as a commerical affair with gains for everyone. What could go wrong : )

    I am interested to see how this experiment turns out because it flies right smack into the face of conventional wisdom

    If the Bania mentality is the art of the possible, let's go. IPI was their idea in the last NDA. I remember the same reflexive push back from the media about it. Can't pass through Pakistan they said. In reality what killed IPI was the Americans and their sanctions. The Americans were the spoiler.
    India has tried a lot of unconventional things, for example mango diplomacy, cricket diplomacy. What were the end-results? What you consider unconventional wisdom, I consider it to be a fools errand, that continues with civilians and soldiers dying. I'd be happy if TAPI doesn't materialize. And, did we listen to the Americans in 1971, or during Iran's sanctions? How many times have we voted against the US in the UN? US is a spoiler vis-a-vis Pak, most of the time though - the spoiler was India and its babus.

    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    FATF must have criteria how they will assess the Paks. What FATF expectations are. Whether this information is public or not

    This is years long exercise. The change in terminology is significant. Money laundering can be for anything. Terror financing is much more specific than money laundering.

    Terror financing is done informally with nothing recorded. Which makes me wonder just how the Paks prove a negative here. If there is nothing to start with then how do you show there isn't anything. See what i mean

    I'm not familiar with the reasons why they got put on the list the last time. Which makes me wonder what changes were made that got them off the list and how successful the exercise was. Maybe it wasn't that successful so they got more specific this time around.

    These are not sanctions. They will say they have not been affected. Our media will say aha see, we told you so. The world has given them a pass yet again.

    I prefer to wait and see, this will take time to assess
    Though I don't agree with your establishment-centric diplomatic views, yeah let's wait and see.
    Last edited by Oracle; 28 Mar 18, at 15:56.

  9. #324
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle View Post
    If Pak stopped terrorism in Kashmir, they would have earned much more through cross-border trade than this puny project will add to their revenues. They have been playing US for decades now, how is Turkmenistan even a concern? And the Salala incident showed that being invested in Pak is a dangerous affair. Hillary apologized and she was the SecofState.
    ok, your point is commercial aspects aren't a motivator for the Paks neither will it deter their designs. I'm fine with that

    What worth? NATO supply routes were re-opened. Pak got nothing to lose, once gas starts flowing, it is India which loses. You have to understand that geography insists that the pipeline passes through Pak before entering India. And common sense indicates it's a losing proposition to invest in a pipeline that passes through enemy territory.
    How do we lose ? one source gets temporarily halted is about it. Now we don't want to be too dependent on this one source otherwise we lose more. This then brings up the question of how much does India need to buy to make this project sustainable and how much of a risk it presents in the event of a cutoff. Can you build more here. Articulate more points.

    So far you've said if India dare say one word to displease Pakistan they turn the tap off.

    Why do you think TAPI is for buying peace?
    Could provide an out for the Taliban to lay down arms. They now have a legit source of income

    Really? You didn't understand what I meant? The ISI is the Taliban here. The pipeline sure is an asset, but for the ISI.
    Understood perfectly. The word choice is interesting. Why does the ISI want to protect this line. If it isn't for commerical reasons then there is only one i can think of. It will entrench the Taliban in Afghanistan. The paks would like to have their own hezbollah in Afghanistan. Doesn't mean they'll get it but TAPI doesn't hinder their agenda in Afghanistan. And they will say India is paying for it and laugh.

    Tell me why would the ISI want to mess with this scenario : D

    The pipe and the fees are a means to an end only good so long as taps are open


    Oh good lord. It's GAS, not nukes. Turkmenistan is insignificant to alter any change vis-a-vis Pakmil.
    Paks need gas too, so they would try to get good prices from the Turkmens. My point is if the Paks interfere with the flow to India it puts their own prices at risk from the Turkmens, ie the seller.

    See Ghani's attitude, if the Paks wouldn't allow the Afghans to send to India he would get in the way between the Paks and Central Asia.

    Earlier you were supporting TAPI, now you talk about Turkmenistan retaliating if Pak turns the tap off. Your thoughts are scattered all over the place. You are not sure if you want to support TAPI, you want to take a chance.
    I don't have a problem with TAPI as yet given its standing committee approved. The idea isn't new if we consider IPI from over ten years back


    India has tried a lot of unconventional things, for example mango diplomacy, cricket diplomacy. What were the end-results? What you consider unconventional wisdom, I consider it to be a fools errand, that continues with civilians and soldiers dying. I'd be happy if TAPI doesn't materialize. And, did we listen to the Americans in 1971, or during Iran's sanctions? How many times have we voted against the US in the UN? US is a spoiler vis-a-vis Pak, most of the time though - the spoiler was India and its babus.
    maybe i wasn't clear. I'm in no way seeing this pipeline as a peace promoter between India & Pakistan. No connection or expectation. Unfortunately soldiers and civilans from these two countries will continue to be at risk as is the case presently

    I don't expect Pak policy towards us to change neither our stance towards them. I don't see TAPI influencing what we say or do to them in any way. You however seem to think it gives them some leverage over us and these are the interesting bits i want to see listed out. The ways in which you think TAPI could constrain us in the future.

    By unconventional i'm wondering whether we can do business despite being adversaries. There is an interest on their side which means strategic gains to be had for them in Afghanistan and India and that requires more examination.

    Look at this in a zero sum way, Paks win, Afghans & Indians lose then why would Afghan & Indians want to join. Nice control question for you

    Though I don't agree with your establishment-centric diplomatic views, yeah let's wait and see.
    Our establishment and the American as well given they're the ones that pushed for it. For now this is all there is. It represent a steady build of pressure to meet the aims of their policy. I hope Bolton won't interfere here, he's a war monger but also afraid of Pak nukes. Then again the media hates Bolton so i don't know how reliable their takes on him to date are.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 28 Mar 18, at 21:09.

  10. #325
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Given Pompeo and Bolton in the cabinet i'd be surprised if we see softer language coming out of the administration

    Here We Go Again | American Interest | Mar 22 2018

    DUPLICITY AS DIPLOMACY
    Here We Go Again
    Once again the U.S. government appears to be taking Pakistani promises about combatting terror at face value.

    Less than three months after President Trump promised in his New Year’s Day tweet that the U.S. government would not accept “lies and deceit” from Pakistan, some U.S. military leaders are ready to praise the half-hearted steps Pakistan has taken against terrorist safe havens. If past experience is any guide, the use of softer language by American generals in the hope of strengthening military-to-military ties will only encourage Pakistani generals to assume that their two-track policy of reassuring Americans of cooperation while maintaining support for jihadi terrorists is working.

    Last month, CENTCOM Commander General Joseph Votel told a hearing of the U.S. House of Representatives that he saw “positive indicators” that Pakistan is becoming more responsive to U.S. concerns about its abiding militant safe havens on its territory. He qualified his statement by remarking that Islamabad’s actions do “not yet equal the decisive action that we would like to see them take in terms of a strategic shift.” But General Votel’s words still sufficed to reassure Pakistan’s military leaders, who claim that, after several false starts, this time they really are on the verge of a policy transformation.

    Pakistani media have been reporting that the army chief, General Qamar Bajwa, wants Pakistan to continue along the path of democracy, end all support and tolerance for jihadi militancy and terrorism, and develop better relations with Afghanistan and India. But all evidence on the ground suggests that the “Bajwa Doctrine” is not fundamentally different from the “Kayani Doctrine,” named after General Ashfaq Kayani who served as Pakistan’s army chief from 2007 to 2013. And the “Kayani Doctrine” did not differ in substance from the policies and premises espoused by military commanders before Kayani, notably General Pervez Musharraf, who seized power in a military coup in 1999 and ruled Pakistan for nine years.

    The training and education of Pakistan’s military officers tends to cast their minds in a similar mold, and that mold remains mostly unaltered by changing realities around them. Georgetown University’s Professor Christine Fair makes that point in her 2014 analysis of writings by Pakistan army officers: “Fighting to the End”: The Pakistan Army’s Way of War.

    And while General Bajwa may not want to follow in the footsteps of Pakistan’s long list of coup-making commanders, he cannot avoid politics even if he wants to, for he presides over an officer corps that spends more time thinking about politics than about purely professional matters. (Aqil Shah proves that thesis methodically in his 2014 empirical study, The Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan.)

    Notwithstanding a genuine personal distaste for getting directly embroiled in politics, every Pakistani commander must give voice to his institution’s views and beliefs, most of which have remained unaltered since the ascendance in 1951 of General (later Field Marshal) Ayub Khan as the first indigenous Muslim commander of the army that Pakistan inherited from the British Raj.

    In that worldview, jihadi terrorists serve as a force multiplier for Pakistan against a permanently hostile India and an Afghanistan whose sense of history prevents it from becoming subservient to 70-year old Pakistan, despite the latter’s much larger population and economy. The only terrorists Pakistan needs to oppose, according to this template, are the ones who attack inside Pakistan; those that menace the Americans in Afghanistan or Indians in Jammu and Kashmir are more than tolerable.

    Yet Pakistan’s generals need the United States and China to help make up for deficiencies in the nation’s economic performance and as suppliers of military hardware. Pakistani policy toward China is not particularly problematic, since a shared suspicion of India makes it Pakistan’s strategic partner—and geography ordains that this circumstance will not change. The United States, on the other hand, has scruples that coincide with its interests and so must be treated as a transactional ally—as well as an ally likely to come and go from the region as it sees fit. Only with Washington, then, do the generals need to practice their discipline of duplicity as diplomacy.

    Plenty of U.S. officials have by now caught on to the Pakistani generals’ drill. So a few days after General Votel’s nod to the Pakistani military, a senior U.S. official had to clarify that the “United States has not yet seen Pakistan take significant steps to clamp down on the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network militant groups.” According to this official, Islamabad had failed to take “the kind of decisive and irreversible action” Washington had asked for to help with the war in Afghanistan. As for the “positive indicators” mentioned by General Votel, and later by Defense Secretary James Mattis, the official saw these as attempts by Pakistan “to appear responsive” to American requests. The Pakistanis “have done the bare minimum to appear responsive” to U.S. government requests—the sort of tactical cooperation that has misled Americans into trusting Pakistan in the past, and that has been a key factor in prolonging the war in Afghanistan.

    In other words, this has all happened before. In December 2008, for example, then-Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, saw a positive trajectory in relations with the Pakistan military, based on what seemed like encouraging steps against terrorists and in relation to Afghanistan. Mullen put his faith in the military-to-military relationship just as General Votel seems to be doing now, and he engaged in intense interaction with General Kayani via 26 in-person meetings, punctuated by numerous telephone conversations.

    Kayani managed to sell Mullen on the idea that change was around the corner in Pakistan’s policies as well as its military’s thinking. But three years later Admiral Mullen realized that he had been wasting his time. By the beginning of 2011, Mullen’s frustration with his Pakistani interlocutors spilled over in public statements. Just days before his retirement in September 2011, Mullen told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that Pakistan’s spy agency had played a direct role in supporting terrorists who had attacked the American Embassy in Kabul a week earlier. According to Mullen, “the Haqqani network acts as a veritable arm of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency,” and “with ISI support, Haqqani operatives planned and conducted that truck bomb attack, as well as the assault on our embassy.”

    A decade after Admiral Mullen began his effort to try and change Pakistan’s strategic calculus, his eventual disappointment should not be replaced by General Votel’s unqualified optimism. After all, the Pakistan military’s priorities in relation to Afghanistan have not changed much, nor has its core belief system. So it is worth remembering that, as of 2013, General Kayani’s approach to Afghanistan was described as being based on four pillars: “American troops would have to withdraw from Afghanistan; reconciliation among Afghan factions is not possible without the ISI; the Jalalabad-Torkham-Karachi route remains the most viable for withdrawing American forces; and India cannot be allowed to encircle Pakistan.”

    None of those considerations has changed. The Pakistanis still expect U.S. troops eventually to withdraw from Afghanistan and seem prepared to leverage their control of ground and air lines of communication into Afghanistan. Unless the U.S. and Afghan governments can figure a way to negotiate directly with Taliban leaders and commanders, the ISI continues to believe in its sway over a future peace process. The fear of encirclement by India is also embedded in Pakistan’s national psyche and is maintained with a steady dose of hyper-nationalist propaganda, this despite the fact that it has since been many years since Indian attitudes toward Pakistan could justify such a view.

    For Pakistan to move toward a drastic transformation, it is essential that Pakistanis should have the option to discuss alternative futures for their country, including views on Afghanistan and India that do not paint them as permanent threats. Unfortunately, one of the most consistent themes in the thinking of Pakistan’s generals remains the belief that contending ideas about Pakistan’s direction threaten Pakistan’s survival and stability. Pluralism and open debate are not in their mental manuals. They are sure that the army is better suited than civilian institutions or venal politicians, of which admittedly there are many, when it comes to defining Pakistan’s national interest.

    Until signs of change in that thinking appear, American civil and military leaders should withhold praise for “positive” developments in Pakistan’s terrorism policies. That praise only postpones Pakistanis’ much-needed reflection over the faulty worldview that has shaped Pakistan’s flawed policies.


    Husain Haqqani is director for South and Central Asia at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. He was Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States from 2008 to 2011. His forthcoming book is Reimagining Pakistan.

  11. #326
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Frustrated reactions from the Pak Finance minister

    Pakistan bristles at US pressure to crack down on terror funding | FT | Apr 01 2018

    Islamabad plans controls on offshore wealth in bid to avoid being put on money-laundering ‘grey list’

    April 1, 2018 12:28 pm by Kiran Stacey and Farhan Bokhari in Islamabad

    Pakistan’s de facto finance minister has reacted angrily to US pressure over Islamist extremism and the financing of terror, but is still considering new measures to curb money laundering in a bid to fend off international sanctions.

    Miftah Ismail, the finance adviser to the Pakistani prime minister, has told the Financial Times he is “not worried” if the US cancels all its aid to his country as the two allies argue publicly over whether Islamabad is doing enough to tackle domestic extremism.

    “We are the sixth or seventh-largest country in the world, and have the seventh-largest standing army in the world,” Mr Ismail said in an interview in his office in Islamabad. “We're not going to compromise on our security interest, on our national interest, based on a few hundred million dollars, I promise you that.”

    As President Donald Trump has recommitted to the Afghan war, he has also tried to push Pakistan to do more to tackle the Taliban and affiliated groups, in part by cancelling military aid and threatening further sanctions. But both US and Pakistani officials say this approach has not yet worked, with Islamabad remaining defiant in the face of threats from Washington.

    Mr Trump shocked Pakistan earlier this year when he tweeted that his country had given the country more than $33bn in aid over 15 years but received “nothing but lies and deceit" in return.

    That tweet was followed by an announcement that the US would suspend $2bn in military aid in an effort to push Islamabad into further action against domestic extremists. Congress is currently considering a bill that would see civilian aid also brought to an end.

    Since then, US officials have worked hard to persuade their Pakistani counterparts to take the kind of action that could see aid restored, such as arresting Taliban leaders and freezing their bank accounts. Far from improving relations, however, senior politicians in Islamabad say they are being “lectured to” and “bullied”, and have told the FT that relations are at an all-time low.

    The deterioration in the relationship could threaten US efforts to end the war in Afghanistan, with Washington hoping that Islamabad can both support US troop movements and help bring elements of the Taliban to the negotiating table.

    While much of the negotiation is being done behind closed doors, Mr Ismail’s comments are a rare public admission of the frustration felt by his government over its treatment at the hands of the Trump administration.

    Islamabad was particularly incensed by the US-led push to name and shame Pakistan as failing to stop terrorism financing at a recent international meeting in Paris. Members of the Financial Action Task Force, which includes the US, UK, Russia and China, have proposed placing Pakistan on its “grey list” of countries which are not doing enough to tackle terror funding.

    Islamabad has until June to come up with a plan, which Mr Ismail said would involve prosecuting more people for terror financing and carrying out raids on illegal money changers. But he expressed anger at the way in which the negotiations were handled in Paris.

    Accusing Washington of teaming up with New Delhi, he said: “I think that America and India probably together were just focused on embarrassing Pakistan.” Asked why the US would want to embarrass its ally, he said: “Some guy wakes up early in the morning and tweets; I don't know what the f*** he tweets.”

    Mr Ismail is also weighing up several anti-money-laundering measures that he hopes will help persuade the international community not to take further sanctions. They include forcing holders of foreign currency bank accounts to declare the source of deposits over $100,000, as well as a one-time amnesty for Pakistanis to declare offshore wealth to authorities.

    But he insisted that Pakistan’s biggest mistake was failing to get its message across to its international partners. “Pakistan is doing all we can to improve the security situation in the region but maybe the world is not seeing our narrative [as] we want.”

  12. #327
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    Americans seem to be on top of things. All the new letter combos LeT has come up with are now included in the State depts terror watch list.

    Now how will these buggers stand for office : D

    Amendments to the Terrorist Designation of Lashkar e-Tayyiba | state.gov | April 02 2018

    The Department of State has amended the designation of Pakistan-based terrorist organization Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LeT) to include the aliases Milli Muslim League (MML) and Tehreek-e- Azadi-e Kashmir (TAJK). The aliases have been added to LeT’s designations as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) under Section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) under Executive Order 13224.


    These designations seek to deny LeT the resources it needs to plan and carry out further terrorist attacks. Among other consequences of the designations, LeT’s property and interests in property subject to U.S. jurisdiction are blocked, and U.S. persons are generally prohibited from engaging in any transactions with the group.


    Ambassador Nathan A. Sales, the Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State, noted that “today’s amendments take aim at Lashkar e-Tayyiba’s efforts to circumvent sanctions and deceive the public about its true character. Make no mistake: whatever LeT chooses to call itself, it remains a violent terrorist group. The United States supports all efforts to ensure that LeT does not have a political voice until it gives up violence as a tool of influence.”


    Formed in the 1980s, LeT was responsible for the November 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, including six Americans, and has killed dozens of Indian security forces and civilians in recent years. LeT continues to operate freely within Pakistan, holding public rallies, raising funds, and plotting and training for terrorist attacks. The Department of State designated LeT as an FTO and SDGT on December 26, 2001. Its leader, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, is also designated as an SDGT.


    To avoid sanctions, LeT has repeatedly changed its name over the years. In January 2017, LeT began operating under the name Tehreek-e-Azadi-e-Kashmir. LeT has engaged in terrorist activities under this name, including inciting terrorism, as well as recruiting and fundraising. In August 2017, LeT chief Hafiz Saeed created the MML to serve as a political front for the group. LeT members make up MML’s leadership and the so-called party openly displays Saeed’s likeness in its election banners and literature.


    Concurrently with today’s State Department actions, the U.S. Department of the Treasury designated seven members of the MML central leadership body for acting for on behalf of LeT: Saifullah Khalid, Muzammil Iqbal Hashimi, Muhammad Harris Dar, Tabish Qayyuum, Fayyaz Ahmad, Faisal Nadeem, and Muhammad Ehsan.


    Today’s actions notify the U.S. public and the international community that TAJK and MML are aliases of LeT. Terrorism designations expose and isolate organizations and individuals, and deny them access to the U.S. financial system. Moreover, designations can assist the law enforcement activities of U.S. agencies and other governments.

  13. #328
    Senior Contributor Oracle's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jul 13
    Location
    966.3673
    Posts
    3,799
    UN terror list has 139 Pakistan entries

    WASHINGTON: The United Nations Security Council’s consolidated list of terrorist individuals and entities includes 139 entries from Pakistan.

    The list — updated and accessed on Tuesday — identifies all those individuals who have lived in Pakistan, operated from there or have been associated with groups that used Pakistani territory for carrying out their operations, from Al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri to known Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) activists.

    The first person on the list is Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s heir apparent. The UN data claims that he is still hiding somewhere “in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area”. Several of his lieutenants are also on the list who, the UN believes, are hiding with him.

    The second person on the list is another internationally known terrorist, Ramzi Mohammad bin al-Sheibah, who is identified as a Yemeni national, arrested in Karachi and handed over to the US authorities.


    More than a dozen suspected terrorists are listed in the same category, arrested in Pakistan and handed over to the US authorities. Some of them had Pakistani passport, issued by various Pakistani missions in the Middle East and renewed in Pakistan.

    The list also includes Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, an Indian national who, according to the UN Security Council, has held several Pakistani passports issued in Rawalpindi and Karachi. The UN claims that he owns a “palatial bungalow in the hilly area of Noorabad, Karachi”.

    LeT’s Hafiz Mohammad Saeed is listed as a person also wanted by Interpol for his involvement in terrorist activities. Haji Mohammed Yahya Mujahid, LeT’s media contact, and Hafiz Saeed’s deputies, Abdul Salaam and Zafar Iqbal, are listed under him. Like Hafiz Saeed, they are all wanted by Interpol.

    LeT is listed with its various aliases, such as al-Mansoorian, Paasban-i-Kashmir, Paasban-i-Ahle Hadith, Jamaatud Dawa and Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation.


    Terrorist entities that were allegedly based in Pakistan, worked from there or had links to Pakistani individuals, include Al Rasheed Trust, Harkatul Mujahideen, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Wafa Humanitarian Organisation, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Rabita Trust, Ummah Tameer-i-Nau, Afghan Support Committee, Revival of Islamic Heritage Society, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, Al-Harmain Foundation, Islamic Jihad Group, Al Akhtar Trust International, Harkatul Jihad Islami, Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaatul Ahrar and Khatiba Imam Al-Bukhari.

    Some of them are listed as based in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area.
    More shame --> Senior Dubai Official Shames ‘Criminal’ Pakistanis, Compares Them To ‘Disciplined’ Indians

    Senior Dubai official compares ‘criminal’ Pakistanis to ‘disciplined’ Indians

    Khalfan also advised the UAE nationals to not employ Pakistanis, who otherwise enjoy deep historic relations with the region through cultural and religious ties.

    “We have seen the Pakistanis do great harm to our Gulf communities,” and asked “Why are Indians disciplined? While sedition, criminality and smuggling in the Pakistani community are rampant.”

  14. #329
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    What needs to be done

    Pakistan moves to address deficiencies in AML, CFT regime | Nation | Apr 03 2018

    ISLAMABAD - Pakistan is preparing to develop a consolidated database of known terrorists and terrorist organisations which will be accessible for financial institutions and law enforcement agencies of the country as the country has moved to address deficiencies in the country’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing Terrorism regime.

    The move comes on the heels of the plenary meeting of Financial Action Task Force (FATF) held on February 18-23 in Paris in which the Force approved nomination proposal tabled jointly by the US, UK, France and Germany to place Pakistan in the Grey List of FATF, according to the documents exclusively available with The Nation.

    Realising the consequences, Pakistan is fast movingto address the deficiencies in the country’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Financing Terrorism regime identified in the nomination proposal approved by the Financial Action Task Force in February and has prepared a draft action plan in this regard. The draft action plan also includes development of a consolidated database of known terrorists and terrorist organisations and access of this database to financial institutions and LEAs and concrete steps to prevent illicit cross-border transportation of currency. Several meetings have so far been held to discuss the draft action plan, according to the officials involved in the process. The action plan would be implemented at a fast pace, according to the officials who spoke to The Nation on condition of anonymity.

    The areas on which the action plan would be based include; supervision and enforcement of AML/CFT controls by financial institutions including money service businesses, measures to prevent illicit cross-border transportation of currency, progress on terrorist financing investigations and prosecutions, including the necessary coordination with provincial authorities, and implementation of targeted financial sanctions regarding coordination between provincial and federal law-enforcement authorities to identify and freeze UNSCR 1267 and 1373 property and enforcement of prohibition of funds and financial services.

    Under “Supervision and enforcement of AML/CFT controls by financial institutions”, the action plan has proposed the Pakistani institutions to identify and sanction unlicenced money remitters and also identify the sanctions available against exchange companies and demonstrate how they are implemented.

    The action plan has also suggested additional measures on exchange companies, provide details of cases (investigation, prosecution and conviction) initiated against Hawala/Hundi operators.

    Awareness campaign against Hawala and Hundi would also be launched while the SBP and FIA would be responsible for implementation of this part of the action plan.

    Terrorist financing

    investigations

    The authorities have also suggested progress on terrorist financing investigations and prosecutions, including the necessary coordination with provincial authorities. Under the action plan, details of terrorist financing, prosecution and convictions would be provided to the relevant quarters and it will be ensured that centralised database of all terrorism related cases has been established and available to the LEAs. The Ministry of Interior, NACTA, provincial counter-terrorism departments and FIA would take responsibility for its implementation.

    Currency declaration system

    The action plan also suggests effective implementation of currency declaration system at all entry and exit points in the country. The authorities would demonstrate how in practice, customs effectively detects, interdicts, seizes and sanctions cases of cash couriers. They would also ensure that there is adequate coordination among customs, immigration and other related authorities on issues relating to implementation of cross border transportation of cash. It would be ensured that details regarding declaration of currencies and seizure of currencies are periodically shared with the Financial Monitoring Unit. A separate FMU has been established in the State Bank of Pakistan which would interalia, receive, analyse and disseminate the suspicious transactions reported by banks/DFIs. Developing database of passengers carrying foreign exchange above threshold limit and sharing information with FMU has also been suggested in the action plan.

    Coordination between provincial, federal law-enforcement authorities

    The action plan has also suggested coordination between provincial and federal law enforcement authorities to identify and freeze UNSCRs 1267 and 1373 property. Details of coordination mechanism that exists between federal/provincial authorities, steps taken by the authorities to identify terrorist assets and economic resources and details of designated/proscribed individuals/entities be available to all federal/provincial authorities to intercept funds or other assets of such individuals/entities. Details of assets frozen by authorities separately under the UNSCRs, details of frozen financial assets, details of other assets frozen and seized (cash donations, moveable/immovable properties-vehicles, businesses etc.) and details of assets taken over by the federal/ provincial governments would also be shared with the federal/ provincial authorities.

    Enforcement of prohibition of funds, financial services

    For the enforcement of prohibition of funds and financial services, the authorities have recommended to ensure that SROs issued under UNSCRs 1267 and 1373 (issued under ATA) contain the language as required under persons and entities. The authorities would demonstrate that SROs issued under UNSCR-1267 are implemented without delay. The government would also frame ATA freezing and seizure rules under the Anti-Terrorism Act-1997 and ensure that Anti-Terrorism Amendment Ordinance 2018 is enacted through the parliament, according to the draft action plan. Awareness raising campaigns restricting the use of social media for fund raising by designated/proscribed entities would be ensured while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MOI, SBP, SECP and NACTA would implement this part of the plan, according to the documents.

    Persons on 4th Schedule

    The investigation officers would be trained on investigation of financial aspect in terrorism cases and it would be ensured that list of persons on 4th schedule is available to all financial institutions and Designated Non-Finance Businesses. Furthermore, implementation of sanctions prescribed under section 11 (O) (2) of ATA-1997 and supervision and enforcement of AML/CFT controls by financial institutions, including money service business would be ensured. The recommended actions also include steps taken by the authorities to identify terrorist assets and economic resources; details of designated proscribed individuals/ entities would be available to all federal and provincial authorities to intercept funds or other assets of such individuals and entities.

  15. #330
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    7,869
    About bloody time

    MML In Hot Water | Nation | Apr 04 2018

    Milli Muslim League (MML), which enjoys the approval of the chief of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET), Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, finds itself in hot water. The latest amendments of the US Department of State in the designation of LeT, identifying MML as LeT affiliate, will make it almost impossible for MML to register itself as a political party with Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP). To make the case even worse for the party, the State Department has also included seven of its members to the list of individual terrorists.

    Only a day before the list was updated, ECP directed MML, the supposed political front of Jamat-ud-Dawa, to produce a clearance certificate from Interior Ministry so that no hurdles are encountered in the process of registration. The interior ministry already took pre-emptive measure against JuD’s effort to get a political space. While ECP has adjourned the hearing of MML’s case until May 2, the latest American amendments declaring MML as affiliates of LeT will make it difficult for MML to get clearance from the Ministry.

    Despite the earlier refusal by the ECP to register MML as a political party, directions issued by Islamabad High Court (IHC) compelled the commission to give the party a chance of hearing. The most recent move by the US officials is a blowback to military’s efforts to mainstream militant groups. While military considers mainstreaming such organisations as the only way of keeping them away from engaging in terrorist activities, the political analysts see such a proposal as playing with fire.

    In the midst of all such confusion, whether MML has the right to operate as a political party or not, the party continues to field candidates in by-elections and hold rallies. The party has shown its approval of Hafiz Saeed and his message. The party is supportive of his activities. Such public display of affection for a proscribed individual is more than enough reason for Interior Ministry to be wary of party’s future plans. According to a report of one security agency, “it is difficult to believe that MML will tread its own path, completely at variance with its mother (LeT and JuD) organisations,” adding that, therefore, the agency “recommended that since registration of such groups would breed violence and extremism in politics, such groups be avoided.”

    Considering the recommendation of the security agency and the latest pronunciation of the State Department should push the government into making a decisive decision on the future of MML.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Oregon Stimulus plan miserable failure
    By highsea in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 17 Mar 10,, 05:13
  2. Afghan and U.S. Officials Plan to Recruit Local Militias
    By 1980s in forum Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation New Dawn
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24 Dec 08,, 16:16
  3. Bush's Intelligence Overhaul a `Failure
    By Ray in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02 Feb 07,, 06:20
  4. Reid branded 'an enemy of Islam' during speech
    By Parihaka in forum International Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 Sep 06,, 06:34
  5. 15 year old boy branded by employer
    By platinum786 in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04 Jun 06,, 02:26

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •